of the CBA as between the parties thereto; and (3) since are, at present, represented by ILO-PHILS.

Hence,
SECOND DIVISION G.R. No. 95013 September 21, 1994 the CBA was filed outside the 30-day period specified petitioner's reliance on the March 22, 1990 Certification
under Article 231 of the Labor Code, the prohibition issued by Director Bautista, Jr., is misplaced. The
TRADE UNIONS OF THE PHILIPPINES/FEBRUARY against certification election under Article 232 of the existence and filing of their CBA was confirmed in a
SIX MOVEMENT TUPAS/FSM), petitioner, vs. HON same Code should not apply to third parties such as Certification, dated April 24, 1990, issued by Director
BIENVENIDO LAGUESMA, TRANSUNION petitioner. Romeo A. Young of DOLE-Region IV. 7
CORPORATION-GLASS DIVISION, AND INTEGRATED
LABOR ORGANIZATION (ILO-PHILIPPINES), As stated earlier, the Secretary of Labor and The Certification of ILO-PHILS. "as the sole and
respondents. Employment affirmed the impugned Order of the exclusive bargaining agent of the rank-and-file workers
Med-Arbiter, ruling that the belated submission of the of Transunion-Glassware Division," means it shall remain
Alar, Comia, Manalo and Associates Law Offices for CBA was excusable and that the requirement of the law as such during the existence of the CBA, to the exclusion
petitioner. Arcaya & Associates for Transunion was substantially complied with upon the filing of a copy of other labor organizations, including petitioner, and no
Corp.-Glass Division. Francisco A. Mercado, Jr. for of the CBA prior to the filing of the petition for certification petition questioning the majority status of the incumbent
Integrated Labor Organization (ILO-Phils.) election. TUPAS-FSM then filed a motion for bargaining agent shall be entertained, nor shall
reconsideration, but it was also denied, Hence, this certification election be conducted, outside of the
PUNO, J.: petition for certiorari where petitioner alleged: fifty-day freedom period immediately before the expiry
date of the five-year term of the CBA. 8
Petitioner Trade Unions of the Philippines-February Six GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION ON THE PART OF
Movement (TUPAS-FSM) seeks the reversal of the THE PUBLIC RESPONDENTS AMOUNTING TO LOSS We now resolved the legal issue. Petitioner points out
Resolution, dated July 25, 1990, rendered by then OF JURISDICTION; and that the subject CBA was filed beyond the 30-day period
Secretary of Labor and Employment Ruben D. Torres, In prescribed under Article 231 of the Labor Code. It also
OS-MA-A-5-167-90, which dismissed the petition for THE RESOLUTION IS CONTRARY TO THE FACTS insists that under Article 232 of the Labor Code, the
certification election filed by petitioner TUPAS-FSM for AND THE LAW. prohibition on the filing of a petition for certification
being prematurely filed. 1 election applies when the CBA had been duly registered
The petition lacks merit. and, in this case, since the CBA was not registered in
The controlling facts, as culled from the records, are as accordance with the Art. 231, the prohibition will not
follows: Petitioner raises both factual and legal issues in this apply. We disagree.
present petition.
On March 23, 1990 TUPAS-FSM filed a petition for Article 231 an s232 of the Labor Code read:
certification election with the Regional Office No. IV of First, the factual issues. Relying on the March 22, 1990
the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), for Dole Certification issued by Director Bautista, Jr., supra, Art. 231. — Registry of unions and file of collective
the purpose of choosing a bargaining representative for petitioner insists there was no existing CBA between agreements. - . . . .
the rank-and-file employees of Transunion Corporation's Transunion Corporation and any labor organization when
industrial plant, situated in Canlubang, Laguna, known it filed its petition for certification election on March 23, Within thirty (30) days from the execution of a Collective
as the Transunion Corporation-Glassware Division. 1990. Bargaining Agreement, the parties shall submit copies of
Petitioner had then secured a Certification , dated the same directly to the Bureau or the Regional Office of
To further strengthen its position, petitioner charges that the Department of Labor and Employment for registration
March 22, 1990, issued by Tomas B. Bautista, Jr., the filing of the CBA was antedated to march 14, 1990, accompanied with verified proofs of its posting n two
Director IV of DOLE (Region IV), that "Transunion to make it appear that the same was already existing and conspicuous places in the place of work and ratification
Corporation" has no existing collective bargaining filed before the filing of the petition for certification by the majority of all the workers in the bargaining unit.
agreement with any labor organization. 2 election. Petitioner also claims that since Article 231 of
the Labor Code mandates DOLE to act on the CBA filed The Bureau or Regional Office shall act upon the
It appears, however, that before the filing of said petition, in its office within Five (5) days from date of filing thereof, application for registration of such Collective Bargaining
or on November 15, 1989, Integrated Labor Organization the subject CBA was filed on April 30, 1990, or five (5) Agreement within five (5) days from receipts thereof. The
(ILO-Phils.) was duly certified by DOLE as the sole and days before its registration on May 4, 1990. Regional Office shall furnish the Bureau with a copy of
exclusive bargaining agent of the rank-and-file the Collective Bargaining agreement within five (5) days
employees of Transunion Corporation-Glassware The argument deserves scant consideration. It is form its submission.
Division. 3 On November 28, 1989, a collective elementary that the special civil action for certiorari under
bargaining agreement (CBA) was the forged between Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court can be availed of xxx xxx xxx
Transunion-Glassware Division and ILO-Phils. covering to nullify or modify the proceedings before the concerned
the company's rank-and-file employees, The CBA, with a tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial functions Art. 232. — Prohibition on Certification Election. — The
five-year term from December 1, 1989 to December 1, who has acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction or Bureau shall not entertain any petition for certification
1994, was ratified by a great majority of the rank-and with grave abuse of discretion and there is no appeal, election or any other action which may disturb the
-filers on December 8, 1989. 4 nor any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the administration of duly registered existing collective
ordinary course of law. bargaining agreement affecting the parties except under
In the meantime, the President of ILO-PHILS died. An Articles 253, 253-A and 256 of this Code.
inter-union conflict followed and the subject CBA was This Court is not a trier of facts and it is not its function to
filed with DOLE, for registration purposes, only on March examine and evaluate the probative value of all evidence Corollary thereto, Article 253-A of the same Code reads:
14, 1990,more or less, three (3) months from its presented to the concerned tribunal which formed the
execution. Finally, on May 4, 1990, the Certification of basis of its impugned decision, resolution or order. Art. 253-A. — Any Collective Bargaining Agreement that
Registration was issued by DOLE through Regional 6
Following this hoary rule, it is inappropriate to review the the parties may enter into shall, insofar as the
Director Romeo A. Young. 5 factual findings of the Med-arbiter and the Secretary of representation aspect is concerned, be for a term of five
Labor, regarding the date of filing of the CBA on March (5) years. No petition questioning agent shall be
ILO-Phils., intervened in the certification election 14, 1990 prior to the filing of the petition for certification entertained and no certification election shall be
proceedings initiated by TUPAS-FSM. It opposed the election; conducted by the Department of Labor and Employment
petition in view of the existing CBA between ILO and the outside the sixty-day period immediately before the date
Transunion Corporation-Glassware Division. It stresses the company's voluntary recognition and DOLE's of expiry of such five year term of the Collective
that the petition for certification election should be certification of ILO-PHILS. as the sole and exclusive Bargaining Agreement. . . . .
entertained only during the freedom period, or sixty day bargaining representative of the rank-and-file employees
before the expiration of the CBA. Med-Arbiter Orlando S. of Transunion Corporation-Glassware Division; and the It appears that the procedural requirement of filing the
deal Cruz dismissed the petition on the ground of subsequent registration of the CBA. They are binding on CBA within 30 days from date of execution under Article
prematurity. this Court as they are supported by substantial evidence. 231 was not met. The subject CBA was executed on
In contrast, petitioner’s bare allegation pertaining to the November 28, 1989. It was ratified on December 8,
TUPAS-FSM appealed contending: (1) that pursuant to "antedating" of the date of filing of the CBA is 1989, and then filed with DOLE for registration purposes
Article 231 of the Labor Code. CBAs shall be file with the unsubstantiated and based purely on conjectures. on March 14, 1990.
Regional Office of the DOLE within thirty (30) days from
the date of signing thereof; (2) that said requirement is It is crystal clear from the records that the rank-and- file Be that as it may, the delay in the filing of the CBA was
mandatory, although it would not affect the enforceability employees of private respondent's Glassware Division sufficiently explained, i.e., there was an inter-union
conflict on who would succeed to the presidency of
ILO-PHILS. The CBA was registered by the DOLE only
on May 4, 1990. It would be injudicious for us to assume,
as what petitioner did, that the said CBA was filed only
on April 30, 1990, or five (5) days before its registration,
on the unsupported surmise that it was done to suit the
law that enjoins Regional Offices of Dole to act upon an
application for registration of a CBA within five (5) days
from its receipt thereof. In the absence of any substantial
evidence that DOLE officials or personnel, in collusion
with private respondent, had antedated the filing date of
the CBA, the presumption on regularity in the
performance of official functions hold.

More importantly, non-compliance with the cited

procedural requirement should not adversely affect the
substantive validity of the CBA between ILO-PHILS and
the Transunion Corporation-Glassware Division covering
the company's rank and file employees.

A collective bargaining agreement is more than a

contract. It is highly impressed with public interest for it is
an essential instrument to promote industrial peace.
Hence, it bears the blessings not only of the employer
and employees concerned but even the Department of
Labor and Employment. To set it aside on technical
grounds is not conducive to the public good.

IN VIEW WHEREOF, the impugned July 25, 1990

Resolution, and August 23, 1990 Order of Secretary
Ruben D. Torres and Undersecretary Bienvenido E.
Laguesma. respectively, in OS-MA-A-5-167-90, is
AFFIRMED in toto. Costs against petitioned.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., Padilla, Regalado and Mendoza, JJ.,

concur.